• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arctic Sea Ice is declining when it should be growing.

Nilly said:
My entire post is premised on 2016..... meaning you think my point that climate change is a thing is premised on 2016? You misunderstand.
Click to expand...

No. I didn't say that. I said that your post is premised on 2016 -- the anomaly on the graph, the unusually warm November. These are the data points you're using to make your argument. 2016.

I mean, the article I link to is describing a phenomena that's happening this year, yes. So of course I'm going to talk specifically about this year. But that single year is far from the entire evidence for climate change.
Click to expand...

I didn't say otherwise. But you based your post and your pronouncements therein on 2016.


The graph touches on that and shows data from multiple years
Click to expand...

Yes it does, and as difficult as it is to read, it shows above-average ice levels in some recent years. But you're taking 2016 as the bellwether.


As I said, there's far too much evidence to cram into one post. If you didn't get that from the OP, I'm sorry I didn't cater specifically to you, most other people seem to be getting it.

You still haven't told me what enormous leap you think I'm making, so can you just spit it out instead of wasting my time?
Click to expand...

What is it with you people these days, pretending not to understand what someone else says, when the reality is you just disagree with it? It's not enough just to disagree, no, you have to pretend nothing was even said.

This is a particularly pernicious and intellectually-vacuous form of "argument" that has slipped into "debate" recently. And it seems to be far more prevalent among "progressives." Is it an artifact of "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces," where you just pretend that those things you don't want to hear don't exist?

If you really don't understand what I'm saying -- that your entire ****ing post is the leap -- then oy vey, brother. You're drawing your conclusions based entirely on what's happening THIS YEAR. Do you get that? I guess not.
 
11Bravo said:
imo this is a good thing. more water for us and more sea for the polar bears to swim in.
Click to expand...

Actually it's bad for the polar bears. They hardly eat at all until the ice gets big enough for them to hunt on it. Nature is adaptable, though- they've started to cross-breed with grizzly bears.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly–polar_bear_hybrid

Melting sea ice won't raise the sea levels any more than the ice cube melting in a glass of whisky raises the level in the glass. I'm looking forward to less winter, though.
 
11Bravo said:
polar bears can swim underwater for weeks at a time. they could swim from California to japan. fun fact :)
Click to expand...

Nofing_way.jpg


You are confusing them with whales.
 
LowDown said:
The mean temperature of the Arctic is currently well below freezing.
Click to expand...

... so what? How do you think arctic ice cover grows and shrinks?

You seem to be arguing that increasing global temperatures wouldn't cause arctic ice cover to shrink. Help me out here with a more detailed explanation because I'm confused as to what you're driving at.

Do you mean it doesn't melt in November? Because... um, duh?
 
Nilly said:
In what world do you live in where a difference > 2 standard deviations is not 'much lower than normal'???

That said, I'll agree with you that levels of sea ice aren't indicators for global temps, but as the article says, one rather likely cause for this is that the slightly warmer than usual temps in the arctic region lead to lower pressure differentials which causes weaker jetstream. A weaker jetstream means that warmer air pushes north, and you get a big positive feedback loop. And the introduction of a positive feedback loop often results in anomalous data. The real question is, will it stay anomalous or will it become the new norm.

Whether or not ice extant has been this low in the past is, imo, secondary to the fact that this is an absolutely unprecedented change from one year to the next, that we can infer even if we do only have 30 years of data. Something is going on, and the agw hypothesis fits the data, again.
Click to expand...

"Unprecedented" means it never happened before. No way do we know that's true, and there's some evidence that it's not true.

Sea ice is the tail on the dog. If you want to argue about temperatures look at the temperature data.

By the way, in the Arctic summer, when the mean temperature rises above freezing, the duration and magnitude of the temperature rise hasn't changed a bit; it's the same from year to year.
 
LowDown said:
Sea ice is the tail on the dog. If you want to argue about temperatures look at the temperature data.

By the way, in the Arctic summer, when the mean temperature rises above freezing, the duration and magnitude of the temperature rise hasn't changed a bit; it's the same from year to year.
Click to expand...

That... isn't correct. Arctic temperature anomalies have risen faster than the global average.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
No. I didn't say that. I said that your post is premised on 2016 -- the anomaly on the graph, the unusually warm November. These are the data points you're using to make your argument. 2016.

I didn't say otherwise. But you based your post and your pronouncements therein on 2016.

Yes it does, and as difficult as it is to read, it shows above-average ice levels in some recent years. But you're taking 2016 as the bellwether.

What is it with you people these days, pretending not to understand what someone else says, when the reality is you just disagree with it? It's not enough just to disagree, no, you have to pretend nothing was even said.

This is a particularly pernicious and intellectually-vacuous form of "argument" that has slipped into "debate" recently. And it seems to be far more prevalent among "progressives." Is it an artifact of "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces," where you just pretend that those things you don't want to hear don't exist?

If you really don't understand what I'm saying -- that your entire ****ing post is the leap -- then oy vey, brother. You're drawing your conclusions based entirely on what's happening THIS YEAR. Do you get that? I guess not.
Click to expand...

Jesus. What do you think is my conclusion exactly? That global warming is a thing? That we've taken a step back by electing Trump? That we're leaving a ****tier planet? That the rate of global temperature change we're currently experiencing is unprecedented in human history? I don't know what you're arguing against dude, except for me as a person in general.

The Arctic ice of 2016 (which is the main topic of my post) is merely one piece of evidence supporting my belief that agw is an issue. If I didn't make that clear enough in my followup posts, then I'm sorry you were unable to grasp that. Again, everyone else seems to.

How is my whole post a leap, when the majority of my post is describing a factual phenomena that is happening this year?
 
Last edited:
Nilly said:
Jesus. What do you think is my conclusion exactly? That global warming is a thing? That we've taken a step back by electing Trump? That we're leaving a ****tier planet? That global temperature change this fast is unprecedented in human history? I don't know what you're arguing against dude, except for me as a person in general.
Click to expand...

OH, I don't know; could be THIS:

Whether or not you think that climate change/agw is a big deal, change this fast is unprecedented, and it's patently clear that it's actually happening, it's not a figment of green lobbyists imagination.
Click to expand...

Being the conclusion you reach based on one anomalous year, as in, "here it is guys, proof positive."
 
Harshaw said:
OH, I don't know; could be THIS:

Being the conclusion you reach based on one anomalous year, as in, "here it is guys, proof positive."
Click to expand...

Read the hyperlink behind 'unprecedented'.
 
Nilly said:
Read the hyperlink behind 'unprecedented'.
Click to expand...

Dude. If you're claiming now just to be making the same run-of-the-mill AGW argument that's been made for years and years, with hockey sticks and all of that, then why even bother to bring up 2016? It's irrelevant to that argument. It's a single year. An outlier.

No, you were using 2016 and the dramatic difference in ice formation, and the unusually warm November, to draw conclusions. There's no other reason to have brought it up.
 
Deuce said:
... so what? How do you think arctic ice cover grows and shrinks?
Click to expand...

Arctic ice grows and shrinks because a combination of the wind and temperature change.

The OP talked about the ice extent shrinking when it's usually expanding at this time of year. It's not because Arctic ice is shrinking now. Arctic ice extent is not very different at this time of year as during the last few years.

Sea ice extent in Antarctica has dropped off more than usual in the last few weeks. It must be shrinking faster than Arctic ice is growing.
 
Harshaw said:
Dude. If you're claiming now just to be making the same run-of-the-mill AGW argument that's been made for years and years, with hockey sticks and all of that, then why even bother to bring up 2016? It's irrelevant to that argument. It's a single year. An outlier.

No, you were using 2016 and the dramatic difference in ice formation, and the unusually warm November, to draw conclusions. There's no other reason to have brought it up.
Click to expand...

Hahaha no I wasn't.

I used the 2016 data from this year to show an immediate impactful example of the agw hypothesis at work. One piece of evidence does not make a hypothesis accurate. No single piece of climate data can be used to prove or disprove agw because there are so many factors and indicators at play. Taking one piece of climate data in isolation is a fools errand, that's the exact reason I put more data in my original post.

This is why I kept asking you to tell me what leaps I was making and what conclusions I was coming to so that I could justify them. Glad we could get to the bottom of it. Any actual objections now?
 
11Bravo said:
can you cite us a more reliable source so we can verify your claims
Click to expand...

C'mon, you don't really think bears can swim underwater for weeks at a time, and swim thousands of miles, do you?
 
Nilly said:
Hahaha no I wasn't.

I used the 2016 data from this year to show an immediate impactful example of the agw hypothesis at work.
Click to expand...

:doh

That's what I said.

One piece of evidence does not make a hypothesis accurate.
Click to expand...

Weird; you just said 2016 shows "an immediate impactful example of the agw hypothesis at work." Which means, you use it to show that the hypothesis is accurate. Which is what I said. 'Coz it sure can't show what you said it does without the hypothesis being accurate.

But it shows no such thing. It's an anomalous. That's the only valid conclusion you can draw.

Recent years show above-average ice. You'd sure as hell be down someone's throat taking one of those years to argue the opposite of you, and you know it.


This is why I kept asking you to tell me what leaps I was making and what conclusions I was coming to so that I could justify them. Glad we could get to the bottom of it. Any actual objections now?
Click to expand...

So . . . you confirmed you were doing exactly what I said you were doing, and you're declaring some kind of mic drop here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom